Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02

Ian Elz <> Mon, 08 November 2010 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CAFB3A6874 for <>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:16:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iKiU+nvMmM9y for <>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 3ECB83A6867 for <>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 08 Nov 2010 18:17:07 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 08 Nov 2010 18:17:07 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 08 Nov 2010 18:17:07 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Received: (qmail 88976 invoked by uid 60001); 8 Nov 2010 18:17:07 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s1024; t=1289240227; bh=7aWhiwDxnd+Fjsj80yvdihsg3QBZJBRHum21r5mxr8U=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=LhHvXe03Jv4PwBvp3f2j679dP3drTaNjKKZg2oaR7AOSsZMqiWajcFudb5OFkWmirOZj7n1lANMV9YLfv/RER7ubH7VjZj7V0VJms43XfDGJlr+YDghpHyZf0+V3s2EJ3qenJwHkMrAVy97NG9yC/cFOvbF6P1jWEYvoXinFWr4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=xiD8oJRJyVrDtATXFJ694oW2ieDtbjTp/588Gkch4nRKWLVFlIKLkkt9Bm7QHEZYoXk9aA39D3XPtFJNMG8Um2bhav/ljZukdLM9rCUgW/ivfV5fK4DsWFmKyl1Uxr404nanetCZDXDaouKpmgAbT+WKwc7J1EXjqOdZzDsE+kw=;
Message-ID: <>
X-YMail-OSG: bMjOIGMVM1naVYz554ey0FP_yNtqc3EptuJFGf7SjfJUar8 5CZAU.9VYb7tRWRMjfC.cUTCvuSAchkaTLRi4ASVd10Zmhnx03zBVfBuBAfb eMGRdn9HgvJMhenCwnTxDtF7cZDLUKh3zMA0e7AbaKdV4NMYdFh3CEITogQ4 FRm94q5fHTK0UEyXMMS4jBmbZa_nJlhqqhkYhPhMtUarI2DCNqfIY8fXP46P 8CLn1M1QqGJdkgj6P6Hn9q3K6XiP0hEZvNIj4F7yyJGHEuS0AlrJMdYJ_f0Z 16A--
Received: from [] by via HTTP; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:17:07 GMT
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:17:07 +0000
From: Ian Elz <>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ian Elz <>
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:16:50 -0000


Roland missed one other case in his reply.

If I divert a call I may want my identity to be private even if the original caller allows his identity to be presented; i.e. I don't want the final destination of the call to know the identity of the diverting party.

Ian Elz

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hadriel Kaplan" <>
To: "Shida Schubert" <>
Sent: Monday, 8 November, 2010 3:01:39 PM
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02

On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:01 AM, Shida Schubert wrote:

> Privacy:none is used when caller (UAC) wants his/her identity delivered
> to the destination (callee) despite the existence of privacy service, but
> with regards to H-I, when does it ever contain the URI that identifies the
> caller (UAC) ?
> I agree that privacy:none will be valid if we can find a situation where
> URI of UA will be one of the hi-entry but my imagination is not strong
> enough to see this.

But that also begs the question of why we need a Privacy header of "history" to begin with. (I mean a real Privacy header in the message, not an embedded one in a particular HI URI)

The only case I could imagine for such things is that the caller doesn't want their domain known about.  I.e., I make an anonymous call from my SIP phone through my corporate SIP proxy, and my SIP phone sets "Privacy: history" so that Acme Packet's anonymization proxy removes "" from any H-Is, before sending it out our SIP trunk, etc.